My last blog provided some thoughts on the ideology and legislative goals that seem to drive the GOP and I promised to flip the page from red to blue this time.  I must confess, however, that I somewhat regret that decision.  One blog is not adequate to shed much light on the many proposals being presented by the Democratic Party’s 2020 presidential candidates and the timing this blog would probably be better next July when the party platform has been written.

Still, even now there’s something fundamentally different about the policies several of the Dem hopefuls are championing.  Calling for free college education, government provided health care benefits for everyone and the Green New Deal demonstrates a big shift to the left.

All Dem hopefuls want to significantly raise taxes on corporations and the wealthy, increase the minimum wage and enact immigration reform.  These initiatives follow from what Democrats have typically championed over the years.  Their proposals this year, however, are much bolder and more controversial.  Medicare-for-All and the Green New Deal top the list.

Sen. Bernie Sanders’ Medicare-for-All seems to have moved from the fringes to become a mainstream idea for Democrats.  The millions of underinsured and uninsured citizens facing the high cost of prescription drugs and medical services are driving its popularity.  Sanders’ plan to replace employer provided health insurance that now covers an estimated 155 million employees, however, is being called radical and disruptive.

According to this brief summary (found here), Sanders’ proposal would phase in over four years.  It would cover inpatient and outpatient hospital care, emergency services, primary and preventive services, prescription drugs, mental health and substance abuse treatment, maternity and newborn care, pediatrics, long-term care services and dental, audiology, and vision services.  There would be no deductibles, no surprise bills for out-of-network services and no copays, except for brand-name drugs.  Businesses would simply pay a Medicare payroll tax to secure health care insurance for their employees.

More moderate candidates favor a “public option” where prospective insureds could buy-in to Medicare if that is their best opportunity for health insurance.  Every Democratic candidate would, at the very least, attempt to expand and improve the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) if other more expansive health care programs couldn’t be achieved.  Health care will remain a key issue for Dems as the primary season continues.

There have been several cost estimates for Medicare-for-All that run as high as $38 trillion over the next decade.  The big question, of course, is how will such a plan be funded?  Needless to it would necessitate some very serious tax increases.

No problem, Democrats in general favor higher taxes, particularly on the wealthy.  A proposal by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) would establish a 70 percent tax rate on individual earnings over $10 million, which would only apply to a limited number of top wage earners.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren has proposed what she calls an “ultra-millionaire tax” of 2 percent annually on net worth between $50 million and $1 billion, going to 3 percent on net worth over $1 billion.  This is a wealth tax, not an income tax.

Sanders has proposed legislation that would impose a progressive estate tax that would reach 77 percent on those over $1billion.  He has also proposed a Wall Street “speculation tax” on financial investment transactions.  Sanders admits to being a “democratic socialist” and his more liberal proposals are not widely accepted by congressional Democrats.

Neither is the Green New Deal (found here) of Ms. Ocasio-Cortez.  Conservatives have their wish list to dismantle the social safety net; the GND resolution is what many liberals hope to achieve.  Ostensibly its purpose is to reduce emissions of greenhouse gasses to combat climate change but its scope goes far beyond that.  It’s a clarion call to further racial equality, protect natural resources and the environment, provide a stronger voice for labor in the work place, ameliorate inequality, expand health care insurance coverage and much more.

The words “as much as technologically feasible” are used as a qualifier in the GND regarding lowering emissions from buildings, transportation and agriculture; so, it doesn’t call for eliminating airplanes or hamburgers as some claim.  Yet, I believe it would keep lawmakers and regulators busy for a decade or more and that it would likely be struck down by the Supreme Court before it could get off the ground.  The same fate could befall Medicare-for-All legislation should it became law.

To greater or lesser degrees, Democrats tend to support most of what my last blog stated that Republicans oppose or would limit, including L.G.B.T. rights, legal abortion, gun controls, climate change initiatives, campaign finance reform, immigration reform and clean energy programs.

My caveats:  President Trump and many Republican politicians are calling their Democratic opponents radical socialists.   True socialists believe that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the government.  No Dem that I know of is advocating for this type of economic system or anything close to it.    But even if they take control of Congress and the White House in 2020, Democratic policies will be constrained by the growing deficits from FY 2019 and beyond and they could be taking power during a recession, just as President Obama did in 2009.  Neither party has a viable plan to control federal deficits and that, in my opinion, is a huge problem.

There is an obvious political reality in 2019; the two major political parties are aligned back to back, engaged in what appears to be a duel to the death between the right and the left.  Since the election of President Obama in 2008, the nation has experienced continuous congressional gridlock.  It appears that no major legislation can get passed unless one party controls both the White House and Congress. I fear that this standoff will continue no matter which party wins in 2020 — unless one party takes complete control.

There is not much more I can write for now about the staggering un-American abuses of President Trump and his GOP supporters.  Consequently, I am devoting this blog to presenting the ideology and legislative goals that seen to drive the Republican Party.  Next blog will do the same for the Democrats.

When boiled down to its essence, I believe the basic philosophical difference between conservatives and liberals is the size and role of the federal government.  Conservatives want very limited federal government; liberals want to empower the federal government to take more responsibility for the health and welfare of all U.S. citizens.  Their respective policies primarily flow from these fundamental beliefs.

The first priority for Republicans is always to reduce taxes.  Cut taxes and grow the economy is their mantra.  Many of them claim that the lost revenue will be offset by increased economic activity.  This philosophy has become so engrained, that the vast majority of congressional Republicans have signed a pledge to never increase taxes on anything, ever.  They even refuse to consider increasing federal gasoline taxes to provide money for much needed infrastructure improvements.

Historically, tax cuts and recessions have created large budget deficits.  Most Republican politicians want to reduce deficits by cutting funding for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security and eliminating many so-called welfare programs.  Their antipathy for the social safety net dominates the GOP platform, the speeches Republicans give and the legislation they craft.  Their campaign rhetoric may not specifically state it, but the underlying budget objective of conservatives is to significantly reduce federal spending for health care, education and government services.

That’s why Republicans and their Libertarian supporters so fiercely opposed Obamacare.  It embodies all the liberal policies that Republicans most abhor.  First, it raises taxes on the wealthy, second, it’s a means-tested entitlement program that increases mandatory spending and third, it adds to the federal bureaucracy.

The Republican proposal for Medicare reveals their plan for health care funding.  It involves a premium support program that would grant eligible individuals a government voucher with which they can purchase health care coverage from an insurance company.  This would eliminate the government’s open-ended responsibility to provide health care for the elderly.

The GOP Medicaid plan has a similar objective, to reduce the federal commitment and cap federal funding.   It would delegate administration of this large health insurance program for the poor to the states based on a per capita, federal government block grant the that would only increase year over year with inflation.

Trump’s fiscal year 2020 budget reveals how most Republicans, particularly the more conservative House members, want to shrink the federal government and rein-in federal regulators, particularly the EPA.  Like typical GOP budgets, it severely cuts funding for most government agencies to achieve deficit reduction.

Trump would cut the EPA, State Department and Corps of Engineers’ budgets by 23 to 31 percent.  Agriculture, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development and Interior budgets would be decreased by 11 to 16 percent.  Labor and Justice budgets would be cut by less than 10 percent.  Defense, Homeland Security, Veterans Administration, NASA and Commerce budgets would be increased by up to 9.3 percent.

Republican politicians want to eliminate funding for clean energy programs and climate change research, control and preparedness.  They oppose minimum wage increases and want little or no restrictions on campaign financing, free trade or gun ownership.  They would, however, severely limit immigration and L.G.B.T. rights and eliminate legal abortions.

Many of the GOP’s wealthiest supporters are basically Libertarians who believe the main responsibility of the federal government is national defense and those functions specifically enumerated in the Constitution.  They believe individuals and corporations should be free to conduct their lives and their businesses without interference from government.

The Heritage Foundation budget proposal from 2017 totally aligns with Libertarian and GOP goals to shrink the federal government.  It provides a good summary of what most conservative Republicans would support: “Congress should put the budget on a path toward balance in order to reduce debt —-, while reducing the tax burden and strengthening national defense.”   This organization urged Congress to repeal Obamacare and reform Medicare, Medicaid and welfare programs.  They want states and localities to be primarily responsible for funding infrastructure improvements, education and welfare.

My caveat:  I have found no empirical evidence to support Republican claims that tax cuts create strong economic growth that offsets revenue losses.  They simply want to defund the federal government.  Significant cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security aren’t politically viable.  Most red states and some blue states are too poor to cope with conservative proposals on Medicaid, education or infrastructure.  Republicans have no new policies for solving mounting domestic problems like affordable health care and income inequality; so, they campaign against what Democrats propose.

Okay, we all know that President Trump and his Republican lackeys, particularly Attorney General William Barr, have created an ominous forecast for our democratic processes, but there are also some good reasons for optimism.  One of them is the skill and tenacity of many Democratic newbies in the U.S. House.  These freshmen – most of whom are women – are kicking butt and taking names.  Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) gets a lot of attention, of course, probably too much.  But another less noticed star is Rep. Katie Porter (D-Calif.).

Ms. Porter was educated at Yale University and Harvard Law School and is a tenured professor at the University of California, Irvine School of Law.  She is also a single mother with three children and an author with specialties in banking and consumer protection.

Many observers probably didn’t expect this fresh-faced member of the House Committee on Financial Services to make much of an impression during her five minutes to question JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon.  After all, he’s a giant of the banking industry, the leader of a company that reaped $3.7 billion in extra profits from the Trump/GOP tax cuts and a billionaire who enjoys a $31 million salary.  Well, she gave a superb performance.

Using JPMorgan’s starting hourly wage and cost of living numbers, Porter showed Dimon how his bank wasn’t paying a hypothetical, newly-hired single mother a living wage.  Noting that this employee would be short $567 at the end of the month, she asked what he would suggest she do.  Knowing he was trapped, Dimon said “I don’t know. I’d have to think about that.”  Katie made her point.

Porter had other opportunities to tenaciously question wealthy bankers, including Wells Fargo CEO Timothy Sloan whose company set up fraudulent accounts for its customers.  She virtually destroyed his credibility, using a poster that contrasted his promises to restore consumer trust in the bank with his lawyer’s courtroom assertions that these statements were just “puffery,” not to be taken seriously.  There are numerous examples of how Katie and other freshman are putting “we the people” above the interests of powerful corporations; these are just two of them.

Still, they reinforce my long-held belief that women in Congress will be a driving force in saving this nation from would-be corporate oligarchs and chest beating militarists.  Certainly, they are just as smart and tough as the men, if not more so.   Yet, they are much more likely to believe that educating our children, providing health care for our citizens and establishing a living wage for working Americans will strengthen the nation more than cutting taxes for the wealthy and spending extra billions on the military.

Fortunately, the 116th Congress that convened in January included 42 newly elected women, 38 of whom are Democrats.  I believe we can expect big things from them going forward.

Let’s not forget, however, that one of the main reasons Democrats won so big in 2018 was their focus on health care issues.  Three years ago, candidate Donald Trump and most other Republicans were still bashing the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).  Conservative media like Fox News and billionaire GOP donors like the Koch brothers had helped them cast this landmark legislation as a government takeover of health care, convincing many voters it would destroy the economy and eliminate jobs.  This was a total ruse.

Encouraged by their own deception, Trump and his GOP supporters in Congress immediately set about making good on their campaign promise to rip up Obamacare, “root and branch.”  Well, guess what happened?  Their failed attempt schooled the public on just how draconian their alternative was.  Voters came to realize that Republicans had no good plan for health care, which enabled Democrats to retake the House.

Next Trump and company pivoted to their tax cut, lying about its likely effects on federal deficits and the economy along the way.  Now that most voters have come to realize it was a huge gift for corporations and the wealthy, Trump’s single biggest legislative achievement is a nothing burger with the middleclass and most Americans who aren’t rich.

Perhaps that is why Trump has turned his focus back on immigration, hoping to stoke continuing anger in his base.  Almost daily we are learning how inhumanely his administration is treating asylum-seekers, particularly innocent children.  It’s as if they are promoting cruelty, both as a policy and a political strategy.  I have to believe that many of those who once applauded Trump’s efforts to protect the borders are repulsed by his methods.  He is creating a public relations disaster for the United States, an image that most Americans do not want to project.  That’s not who we are or the way we want to be seen.

I believe there are lessons voters will learn from the failed GOP tax cuts, Trump’s immigration policies and Republican campaigning during the coming months, just like they were educated by the efforts to repeal Obamacare.  Republicans oppose most legislation that Americans favor, whether it’s providing more citizens with health care, protecting against climate change, raising the minimum wage or reversing inequality trends.  Their ideology simply doesn’t include these policies.

That doesn’t mean, however, that this coming year won’t present significant challenges for those who want to reverse the course set by Trump and his supporters.  But Republicans don’t do well when voters know the truth and they can’t hide from it forever.

Some may remember the House Un-American Activities Committee that was active during 1950s and 1960s.  At the height of the Cold War much attention was being focused on communists in our government, particularly by the alcoholic Republican senator from Wisconsin, Joseph McCarthy.  McCarthy’s vehicle to conduct vicious inquisitions, however, was the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.

Assisted by his chief counsel Roy Cohn – later Donald J. Trump’s attorney – McCarthy’s browbeating hearing tactics destroyed the careers of many innocent people who had nothing to do with communists.  In fact, it was really McCarthy who was engaged in un-American activities.   And over the past quarter century I’ve watched numerous Republican politicians emulate him, as the GOP moved further and further to the right.

Neither party is perfect, of course.  But for over two decades, the GOP has been abandoning the precepts that enabled members of Congress to compromise and work together across party lines for the good of the nation.  I believe the roots of this sharp-edged ideology can be traced to the 1990s and the leadership of then-Speaker of the U.S. House Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.).  His name appears in almost every article I’ve read about divisive partisanship in the House and the dictatorial role of its Speaker.

Gingrich mounted an outright hate campaign against Democrats, encouraging his Republican colleagues to brand them as “traitors, corrupt, sick, radical, and intolerant.”  He orchestrated a 21-day government shutdown beginning in December 1995 because President Clinton refused to slash spending for Medicare and Medicaid – and, Gingrich openly admitted, because Clinton made him exit the rear door of Air Force One after a bipartisan flight to attend a politician’s funeral.

Gingrich launched spurious ethics investigations to weaken political opponents and was the driving force behind impeaching President Bill Clinton in 1998 over a sex scandal.  He created a playbook for the Tea Party that took control of the House in 2011 and provided examples for the later obstruction strategies of Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

Yet, I can’t think of any politician during my lifetime who has done more to weaken the pillars of our democracy than Mitch McConnell.  He virtually destroyed comity in the Senate by weaponizing the filibuster and using his power as Majority Leader to obstruct President Obama.  He even brags about his unprecedented refusal to allow Obama to fill a vacant position on the Supreme Court in 2016.  Now, McConnell is blocking critically needed bipartisan election security legislation, inviting renewed Russian meddling in 2020.

True to form, Republican-controlled states have followed the examples of their national leaders.  They severely gerrymandered congressional districts in 2011 in an effort to control state legislatures and Congress.  After the conservative majority on the Supreme Court gutted key provisions the Voting Rights Act in 2013, Republicans quickly enacted strict voter-ID laws specifically designed to make it harder for minorities and Democratic-leaning voters to cast ballots and conducted questionable purges of voter rolls that were intended to disenfranchise minorities.  How un-American can you get?

Over the years GOP malfeasance paved the way for a candidate like Donald Trump.  While promising to make America great, his conduct is taking the nation in the opposite direction. Trump doesn’t understand that the United States is great because its leaders have fundamentally followed the rule of law for over 200 years and complied with their solemn oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.  Trump scoffs at these presidential obligations.

Trump has adopted all of the GOP‘s worst anti-democracy tactics and is taking them to a higher level.  He doesn’t just bash the media; he calls it the “enemy of the people.”  Trump not only skirts the nation’s laws, he treats them as mere guidelines that he can ignore.  Recently he admitted that he would take “dirt” on his political opponents from a foreign government and may not inform the FBI.  This is not only against the law, it makes a mockery of the Constitution and the ethical standards it requires.  But Trump doesn’t care and neither do his slavish Republican supporters in Congress so long as they can retain power.

Trump’s recent campaign kick-off speech in Orlando told us exactly where we are headed with Republicans in control – lies and conspiracy theories.  When he wasn’t praising himself – always the crux of his rantings – he was whining about the “deep state” that supposedly perpetrated the Russian ”witch hunt.”  And he vilified Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, as if they weren’t fellow Americans, claiming they are monsters who “want to destroy our country.”  He smiles approvingly when the crowd yells “lock her up.”

These aren’t isolated incidents by a few Republicans; they are part of a consistent, pervasive pattern in the GOP.  It hasn’t been the party of Lincoln for decades but now it is totally the party of Trump, even sanctioning the cruel mistreatment of migrant children at the southern border.

Our nation can’t go on like this, divided and full of anger stoked by a lying, demagogic president and a complicit, power-hungry GOP.  Un-American activities by Republicans are leading our democratic republic down a dark, forbidding path toward authoritarianism.  If their tactics succeed, the United States of America will cease to be a beacon for democracy-loving people around the world and a haven for those who seek freedom.

Trump is an abomination, but in defending him, the GOP has become the real enemy of the people.

I recommend a thoughtful, (click here) January 2019 article by Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr. (D-N.J.) on what ails Congress.  Every voter should read this assessment of the “people’s” House.

We just returned from 12 days of cruising and touring various countries with our family — Greece, Turkey, Montenegro, Croatia and Italy.  The morning after our flight to Athens – and before we could shake the jet lag cobwebs from our heads – we climbed up the steps to the Acropolis. This seven-acre fortress towers 490 feet above the city and at its center is the ancient, white marble Parthenon, with its 44 huge columns.  What remains is only a fraction of the architectural magnificence it most certainly had when it was completed in 438 BC.

Later that day we boarded our cruise ship and thereafter, every day was a new adventure.  The first stop was the small Greek island of Mykonos, with its crystal-clear Aegean Sea waters and distinctive white plaster homes and commercial buildings.   Some call it a whitewashed paradise and now I can understand why.  Many of the rich and famous have vacationed there or anchored their yacht in the port, including Aristotle Onassis.  We enjoyed an interesting walking tour.

In Istanbul — population estimated at 20 million – tours included the magnificent 6th century St. Sophia cathedral and the Blue Mosque, which was completed in 1616.  Both are huge, very impressive and well preserved.  We were there on the last day of the Ramadan holiday and the city was crammed with visitors.  Remarkably, ours was the first cruise ship to visit there in the past four years.

Next port was Kusadasi, Turkey, where we walked through an entire city of magnificent Roman/Grecian 10th century BC ruins at nearby Ephesus.  It is amazing how well the Greeks developed ancient civilizations.  Thousands of years ago they created stunning architecture and advanced other sciences in many ways, mathematics, astronomy, philosophy, medicine and more.

As I was gazing at a beautiful marble statue with one arm missing and the nose hacked off, a thought came to mind:  There are builders and creators and there are wreckers and destroyers.  Both groups may have similar motivations, religion, power, wealth or some combination thereof.  But the former advance civilization, while the latter impede it, sometimes simply out of ignorance.   Many of the impeders are still around to this day.

After an overnight sail we docked at another Greek Isle, Santorini.  It rises hundreds of meters out of the blue Aegean Sea like a huge, steep-walled citadel.  Although the sun was bright, the wind was strong that morning with higher winds scheduled for early evening.  That would cut our visit a bit short but after being ferried to shore, we took a short bus ride to the Akrotiri archeological site to view some interesting 16th century BC ruins.   Let that sink in, 16th century BC.

Later we were dropped off at one end of the main shopping area of Firá, the capital city of Santorini.  With some difficulty we navigated up the crowded, narrow, cobblestone streets to the cable car station where we caught a spectacular ride down the 660 feet to the Santorini Old port.  There, a tender ferried us back to the ship.

Several friends have asked a tough question to answer; which country or city was most impressive?  Dubrovnik, Croatia would certainly be high on the list.  The old city there, which dates back to the 12th century, is a fascinating, walled fortress in the harbor.  Another favorite, Kotor, Montenegro, is just a short drive down the coast.  In both countries we learned a lot about olives and what extra virgin means on a label of olive oil.

During the trip we sampled ouzo, a dry, anise-flavored liquor that is Greece’s national drink and grappa, a brandy made from grape skins, seeds and stalks left over from the wine making process, supplemented with herbs.  My wife and I were served small glasses of this clear, high-powered liquid during our tour of a small winery near Dubrovnik.  It is said to be good for digestion.

Grappa is also a popular drink in Montenegro.  Our tour there began with a bus ride up the switchbacks of a steep mountain road that was barely wide enough for a car to pass the bus.  All the while the guide was telling us about how the locals had a reputation for being lazy and drinking a lot.  She said many take a shot of grappa as soon as they open their eyes in the morning, including her grandmother.  I wondered how many others on the bus were hoping the driver was not one of those laidback drinkers.

We ended our adventure in Venice, Italy, where most of us spent some quality time at the magnificent San Marco square.  We walked the three miles back to the dock on the other side of the city through numerous quaint piazzas, down narrow alleys and across bridges over many of the canals.  We got to see our share of gondolas.

While reflecting on the trip I remembered an article I read by NYT Magazine writer Sam Anderson.  He chronicled the life of Rick Steves, a television personality, travel guide and author.  Rick urges Americans to get a passport and let the world outside the United States change their life.  One of his books is entitled “Travel as a Political Act.”  Steves believes travel is not only fun but it may make a huge difference in the tourist’s outlook on life and politics.  Having visited over 40 countries, I whole heartedly agree.

Our grandson officially achieved adulthood recently, a happy event that prompts me to take a welcome pause from my usual political writing.  This occasion brought back some special memories of his mother and him and I hope you won’t mind if I share them with you.  Perhaps they will help you recall some memorable times with your loved ones too.

A little over 50 years ago – Oh my, has it been that long? – my wife and I were living in an apartment near the Kennedy Space Center in Florida.  I was working full time as a computer systems analyst on the Apollo man-on-the-moon project and seeking a degree in mathematics by taking night classes at a nearby college.  Most days during the week I would arrive home after our two-year-old daughter’s bedtime.

One spring evening I went into her room to whisper good night and she was fast asleep, as usual.  The window of her room was facing west and the sun was just about to dip below the horizon.  On the linoleum floor, in a row facing the window , were a half dozen of Fisher Price’s little people and some of her other toys.

Something about the lighting and this menagerie inspired me to begin writing a poem to preserve the memories of this period in our lives and the things that were special in her life at the time.  One was a rocking horse attached to a metal frame with springs that, as I remember, looked something like Pegasus, the winged horse of Greek mythology.  She rocked that bronc so hard and fast that sometimes she would buck herself off onto the carpet.  Another was a stuffed toy lion called Larry that was twice her size.  She also had a doll named Drowsy.  But her favorite bedtime companion was a Snoopy doll that was fashioned like the dog in the Peanuts cartoon.

I managed to memorialize most of her toys in the initial verses but I just couldn’t come up with an ending back then that seemed right.  Perhaps life got too busy with career, college and just raising a family.  Some thirty years later, however, I decided to add some lines and a few years after our now adult grandson was born, I found the inspiration I needed to finish it.  It’s entitled:

Toys on the Floor

Larry Lion and Brownie Bear,

a sleepy-eyed doll with tousled hair.

A broken bracelet, a thousand blocks,

a tiny red and white striped box.

A magic horse that rocks on springs,

a golden stallion with dove white wings.

Small wooden people no longer at play,

she placed in a row at the end of the day.

Snoopy’s there too, right next to the clown,

assembled on the floor to watch the sundown.

But night has brought a silence there,

the lion’s not growling, neither is the bear.

Our little blonde angel is tucked in her bed,

her favorite blue blanket pulled over her head.

Again home too late for a goodnight kiss,

sadly a pleasure I too frequently miss.

But the next day is Saturday and I can sleep in,

except about six her day will begin.

With blanket in hand from the crib she’ll climb,

assembling her gang, they’ll be singing a rhyme.

Then into our bedroom and up on the bed,

she’ll bounce on the mattress and jump on my head.

How quick it all happened, how fleeting it passed.

It’s hard to believe that she grew up so fast.

Still I smile at the memory of her toys on the floor,

and the sound of her laughter at the bedroom door.

For now she is married, with a child of her own;

she hurries to greet him when she’s late getting home.

She knows he’s done things that she had to miss,

and there’ll be those times with no goodnight kiss.

Like me she’ll have memories to fill this lost space,

the warm hug in the morning, the smile on his face.

But too soon only memories of his lion’s roar,

of his little boy laughter and his toys on the floor.

All eight members of the family will be off on a special Mediterranean cruise for 12 days during the first half of June.  Our younger daughter’s, daughter — a perky nine-year-old — can’t wait to board the ship.  This year for me is — as my Chinese friends would say — a BIG birthday (50, 60, and I’m not telling) and we intend to enjoy our time together as a family to celebrate this year’s milestone events.  I will be taking some pictures and may publish at least one blog with something about the trip while we are away.  But that’s a plan, not a promise.

Going forward, I will try to be optimistic and hope that the American electorate will make the right decisions to preserve our democracy.  They usually do.  Yes, the political situation is a total mess and scary.  But we can’t let that defeat us and leave all the work to others.  So, I will be making contributions to, and working for, those politicians and organizations that endeavor to make sure that this nation of the people, by the people and for the people will continue to the benefit of our children and grandchildren for decades to come.

President Trump confessed why he demonizes the press to journalist Lesley Stahl in 2016: “You know why I do it? I do it to discredit you all and demean you all so that when you write negative stories about me no one will believe you.”  Trump has been quite successful in achieving this objective, with lots of support from an adoring Fox News.  He can lie about the most obvious facts and his supporters seem to treat his every word as if it were gospel.

This Trumpian attitude toward the media, however, causes many voters to reject valid information, not only about Trump’s abuses of power but about the policies he’s promoting that are actually hurting them.  His international trade protectionism provides a classic example.

The president claims that tariffs added $100 billion to the U.S. Treasury’s coffers and that China is paying the tab.  Well, either he is playing those who believe him for fools or he is ignorant about how trade barriers work.  Tariffs are levies on imported goods that are mostly paid by the importing company and American consumers, just like a federal sales tax on products we buy.

Trump also lies when he boasts that the GOP will be the “party of health care.”  But the truth is revealed in his fiscal year 2020 budget proposal. No one in Congress paid any attention to this document when it came out in March, so it didn’t get a lot of media attention either.  Fortunately, the Congressional Budget Office evaluated Trump’s spending preferences anyway and its analysis was just published last week.

After all his hoopla, this CBO report shows that Trump wants to cut federal spending on health care by almost $1.5 trillion over the next decade.   Most of that reduction is based on his continuing plan to repeal Obamacare and comes from the current funding of Medicaid, although Medicare takes some hits too.  Will the folks in rural Trumpland whose hospitals are closing for lack of funding and who struggle to get health care come to understand what Trump and the Republicans are doing to them?  I doubt it.  And will those who are exposed to some facts believe them?  Not if Fox News can help it.

Trump will tout the fact that wages are finally increasing now that unemployment is at all-time lows and he will credit his 2017 tax cut.  But will he brag about the inequality that Republican tax policies have been causing since the 1980s and highlight a recent analysis of wealth holdings by the Federal Reserve?  I don’t think so.

The Fed estimates that Americans owned $114 trillion of assets in 2018.  The two largest categories were real estate, including housing, and pensions like 401(k)s.  Next were corporate stocks and mutual funds, followed by durable goods like vehicles, appliances, furniture, etc.  Liabilities totaled $15 trillion, which are mostly mortgages and consumer credit.  You know, the kind of debts the middleclass have.  That leaves Americans with around $100 trillion in net worth.  Quite impressive, right?

Well — yes, until you find out who owns all this wealth.  The Fed estimates that the top 10 percent of U.S. households control 70 percent of the household wealth, an increase from 60 percent in 1989.  The share of the wealth distribution held by the top one percent has increased from 23 percent in 1989 to almost 32 percent in 2018.  Over this same period, the wealth share of the 50th to 90th percentiles — the middleclass and the upper middleclass — decreased from 36 percent to 29 percent.  It appears that losses by this economically core group became gains for the top one percent.  And as the wealthy gain more, Republicans want to tax them less.

The bottom 50 percent of the wealth holders, according to the Fed, experienced virtually no increase in their net worth over the last 30 years, as their total wealth share decreased from four percent in 1989 to one percent in 2018.  Consequently, many in this group have almost no net worth and scant savings for retirement, health emergencies or nursing home care.  And growing federal budget deficits could make their plight worse as Republicans press for significant cuts to the entitlement programs that help keep some of these folks out of poverty.

The deficit red ink during the coming decade will add $11.4 trillion to the national debt according to the latest federal budget baseline published by the CBO.  But this projection assumes that the 2017 Republican tax cuts for individuals will expire in 2025 and that revenues will thereafter increase.  If these tax cuts are made permanent, which is likely, the 10-year deficit will balloon to over $12.2 trillion.

A financial advisor recently told me that Trump will do everything he can to keep the economy strong until the 2020 election and I agree.  Trump will lie; he will bully the Fed to cut interest rates; and he will label any negative numbers and critical information about his economic policies “fake news”.  And his supporters will probably swallow these specious claims like a cold beer on a hot day.

But what is truly frightening — and disheartening — is how Republican politicians have dutifully kneeled to Trump’s imperial presidency no matter how he lies and in spite of the damage he is doing to the rule of law and the Constitution.

When the Democratic Party nominated former secretary of state Hillary Clinton as their standard bearer for the 2016 presidential race, the GOP was way ahead of the game.  Republicans had been doing everything they could to damage her credibility and weaken her eventual candidacy for decades.

Independent Counsel Ken Starr’s four-year investigation of Bill and Hillary Clinton is mostly forgotten except that it resulted in President Clinton’s impeachment in 1998.  That effort was engineered by then-Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), a no-holds-barred, firebrand politician from the far right.  Right-wing conspiracy theorists at the time even accused the Clintons of murdering Vince Foster, the Deputy White House Counsel who committed suicide in July 1993.

Still, Bill survived impeachment and left office in January 2001 with a reasonably high approval rating.  That same month, Hillary was sworn in as New York’s junior senator, having won that seat in November 2000 while still serving as First Lady.

She would use this platform to run for the nation’s highest office in the Democratic primary in January 2008.  The right-wing was ready for her.  Conservative non-profit Citizens United produced a political documentary entitled Hillary: The Movie that they hoped to release early in that campaign.  It portrayed Ms. Clinton as unfit to be president.

The film was blocked by the Federal Election Commission, however, and became the subject of the infamous “Citizens United” Supreme Court case.  I believe the resulting decision rendered by the conservative majority was one of the most undemocratic in the history of the court, but that’s a different story.  The point is: Mrs. Clinton was constantly under attack from the right.

Hillary lost the primary battle to Barack Obama; and he went on to represent the Democrats in 2008 and was elected president.  After being inaugurated, President Obama selected Hillary to be his secretary of State, which probably angered Republicans.

Although Gingrich resigned from the House in 1999, the seeds of political viciousness he had planted in the GOP took root with some of the far right proteges he had promoted in Congress and continued to grow during President George W. Bush’s eight years in office.  Right-wing radio talk-show hosts like Rush Limbaugh and archconservative Fox News — which had begun broadcasting in 1996 — continued to promote Gingrich’s strong hostility for liberals among their conservative audiences.

During the Bush years another ruthless politician was working his way up the GOP leadership ladder in the Senate, Kentucky’s Mitch McConnell.  As a reward for his battle against campaign finance reform, he was elected the Republican minority leader in January 2007.  McConnell is given credit for devising and executing a democracy-weakening program of obstruction against Obama that was unprecedented in Congress.  He weaponized the filibuster with such ferocity that a 60-vote majority was required for almost every action taken by the Senate.

Having a black man as president, however, was just too much for conservatives to tolerate.  Under the guise of promoting fiscal restraint in response to the Great Recession, they formed the Tea Party in 2009 and won a huge victory in the 2010 midterm elections.

In 2011, the Republican-controlled House Oversight Committee chairman, Rep. Darrel Issa (R-Calif.), commenced investigations into every blip that occurred in Obama’s executive branch.  When three Americans and Ambassador Chris Stevens were killed in the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, Republicans seized on another opportunity to demonize then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

These Republicans thrived on conspiracy theories.  So, Issa began hearings based on unsubstantiated claims that Clinton had denied security for the Benghazi facility and had prevented military assets from providing support during the attack.  Numerous other Republican-controlled committees in the House also began investigations, as did the Democrat-controlled Senate Foreign Relations Committee.  Secretary Clinton was not found to be at fault by any of these inquiries.

Still, House Republicans commissioned a select committee to continue the Benghazi inquiry in May 2014.  It was this committee that uncovered evidence of Mrs. Clinton’s private email server.

By 2015 it was clear that Clinton would be a candidate for the Democratic nomination to run for president in 2016.  During an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity, House majority leader Keven McCarthy (R-Calif.) defended conservatives’ performance in the House with the following: “Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right?  But we put together a Benghazi …. select committee.  What are her numbers today?  Her numbers are dropping.”

Tragic as it was, the Benghazi attack pales in comparison to the 9/11 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center and the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor.  Still, Republicans prolonged the politically-motivated Benghazi inquisition against Hillary Clinton for more months than both of these world-shaking atrocities.  Yet, they uncovered nothing new.

Now Republicans want to close the book on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s damning report on President Trump and put the FBI on trial for investigating the Trump campaign’s very questionable Russia connections.  And – incredibly – they want to reopen investigations of Hillary Clinton’s emails.  Sad!

No, Trump is not the cause of the cancer — some call it rot — in the GOP; he is a symptom of it.  This malignancy has been spreading from its right-wing for several decades.  And after Trump leaves office, Republicans will continue to degrade our institutions and democratic processes until the Gingrich, McConnell and Tea Party influences in the GOP are excised.

William Shakespeare could not have written a more riveting drama than that which is unfolding before us.  Two days after receiving Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report on the Russian investigation, Attorney General William Barr presented his four-page conclusions letter to Congress and the public.  It dashed the hopes of those who expected that President Trump would be charged with a crime.  Trump, of course, claimed he was totally exonerated.  He wasn’t.

Almost four weeks later, Barr held a press conference prior to making a redacted Mueller report public.  He sounded more like Trump’s press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, than the chief legal officer of the United States.  Trump was still basking in the glow of Barr’s March 24 letter and having “a great day” as he left for the Easter weekend at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach Florida.  His political high didn’t last long, however, after Democrats and the media had commented on the damning facts about him in Mueller’s 448-page tome.

Mueller’s investigation failed to “establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”  Mueller also declined to find that Trump had obstructed justice — but Trump was definitely not cleared of these charges either.  In fact, the report provides incriminating and shocking detail on Russian interference in the election, the Trump campaign’s highly questionable activities related to the Russian efforts and Trump’s frantic attempts to squash the Russia investigation.

At no time in this nation’s history has a foreign government mounted such a sophisticated, pervasive effort to influence a presidential election.  This was unquestionably an attack on our democracy, akin to an act of war.  Yet, the Trump campaign welcomed it, used it and benefited greatly from it.  Was that a crime?  Mueller didn’t establish the necessary evidence to make that determination but that doesn’t mean crimes weren’t committed.

Were the acts of Trump and his associates treason?  Mueller didn’t go there.  But didn’t Trump and his campaign aid in this attack on the United States by a hostile foreign government?  Consider this: If Donald Trump Jr. had gone to the FBI when Russians offered him “dirt” on candidate Hillary Clinton in June 2016 – as most loyal citizens would have done — their efforts could have been made public and stymied.

Other Trump campaign operatives also had numerous opportunities to do the ethical thing regarding Russian interference, including George Papadopoulos, Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort and others.  Instead, they willingly played along and Trump brazenly requested that Russia hack Clinton’s emails.  Five hours later – according to Mueller – they attempted to do just that.  Surely that fits at least one definition of collusion.

Referring to the release of Russian hack emails, Trump’s personal attorney and former NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani recently mused during an interview, “I wonder if there isn’t an argument that the people had a right to know that about Hillary Clinton.”  What unbelievable audacity!  Didn’t voters have a right to know about Trump’s infidelity with porn star Stormy Daniels, his ongoing attempts to cut a deal for a Trump Tower hotel complex in Russia and the many contacts his campaign associates were having with Russians?  Instead, these important facts were kept from the public with illegal hush money payments and lies by Trump and his associates.

Mueller’s report did reveal some good news:  Trump aids don’t always follow his orders, particularly if they’re illegal.  But here’s the thing, evidence shows that Trump has repeatedly directed his staff to take such actions.  Is that the type of president the rule of law and the Constitution abides?  What about his oath to “faithfully execute the office of President,” which requires that “he take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed?”   Can there be any doubt that Trump believes our laws don’t apply to him?

Another spot of good news is that Trump doesn’t appear to have the cunning to pull off the crimes he has been attempting or the viciousness to exact harsh retribution on those who fail him.  So far, he doesn’t seem capable of taking permanent control of the government.  But given more time and a few more loyal henchmen in high positions, like advisor Stephen Miller, that could change.

The bad news we’ve learned, however, is that AG Barr appears to have become a Trump enabler and “fixer.”  Those who have respected Barr in the past have expressed fear that the man they knew has changed.  If he hasn’t, perhaps he will resign sometime this year in order to save what’s left of his reputation.  Well, I’m not holding my breath.

Presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren tweeted: “To ignore a President’s repeated efforts to obstruct an investigation into his own disloyal behavior would inflict great and lasting damage on this country, and it would suggest that both the current and future Presidents would be free to abuse their power in similar ways.”  But is impeachment in the House worth the effort if there is no chance that Trump will be convicted in the Senate?  Warren says yes; she believes it’s about principle, not politics.  I agree; there are compelling reasons to hold Trump accountable.

Some Democrats may be asking if they can politically afford to impeach Trump.  To uphold the rule of law and the Constitution, the better question is — can they afford not to?

Ask business people what they try to achieve in their planning and they will frequently talk about “certainty.”  They seek to know how much tax they will have to pay, what regulations they will have to endure, how stable their markets will be, etc.  With this information they can set prices and more accurately estimate their return on investment.  Insurance companies are no exception.

For over eight years, however, Republicans in Congress have chipped away at the Affordable Care Act in ways that eliminated certainty in the Obamacare market places.  During the 2016 presidential primary campaign, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fl.) even bragged that a provision he inserted in a spending bill would “kill” Obamacare.  This constant weakening of the law made it difficult for insurers to price their products and no doubt caused premiums to be higher.  The uncertainty also discouraged many insurers from even participating in the insurance exchanges, which lessened competition and increased premiums.

President Trump and congressional Republicans made an all-out effort to repeal and replace Obamacare in 2017.  It was their number one legislative priority, even before cutting taxes.  The draconian proposals they put to a vote, however, failed spectacularly and the effort collapsed when former Sen. John McCain dramatically turned thumbs down on their last gasp attempt in the Senate.

Undeterred by this failure, 20 Republican-controlled states filed suit in federal district court in Texas early last year seeking to invalidate Obamacare.  They claimed that the law was rendered unconstitutional because the 2017 GOP tax law eliminated the fine for not having health insurance.  Last December the conservative judge in that court agreed with their argument.

Sixteen, mostly Democrat-controlled, states and the District of Columbia appealed that decision to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.   Initially, the U.S. Justice Department argued that only the provision of Obamacare that protected people with preexisting conditions was unconstitutional.  Last month, however, Trump ordered the DOJ to join the plaintiffs in seeking to strike down the entire law.

Concurrently, Trump encouraged several Republican Senators to begin crafting a “wonderful health care [replacement] package” and claimed that the GOP would become “the party of great health care.”  After Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell informed him that health care legislation would not be brought up this year or next, the president promised it would be done soon after he was reelected in 2020.

On Tuesday, the DOJ asked the 5th Circuit for an expedited hearing on the Obamacare matter, with oral arguments to occur in early July.  This court is probably the most conservative appeals court in the nation, so the lower court decision might be upheld.  Either way, it seems likely the issue will go to the Supreme Court for a final decision, perhaps next year in the spring.

But here’s the thing.  If the entire Affordable Care Act is held to be unconstitutional, Republicans seeking reelection in 2020 will be facing a disastrous political problem.  Around 20 million Americans would lose their health care insurance; the opioid crisis, which studies show has been moderated by the Obamacare Medicaid expansion, would get worse; people with pre-existing conditions would be priced out of the market; and more hospitals in rural Trump territory would have to close.

Why? Well, the GOP has no good alternative plan for Obamacare — or for folks with pre-existing conditions.  Republicans in the U.S. House, have been proposing huge cuts to Medicare and Medicaid since 2011.  Even Trump’s recent budget called for cutting $241 billion from Medicaid funding over the next decade.  Yet, I don’t think most voters realize the damage these Republican policies would precipitate, even for many in the upper middleclass.  Here’s just one example.

A New York Times article last month entitled “Nursing Homes Are Closing Across Rural America, Scattering Residents,” chronicled how patients are being relocated far from loved ones.  Frequently the reason is financial.  Medicaid funding provides a substantial amount of nursing home revenue, with estimates I’ve read as high as 60 percent.  Conservative South Dakota — which was featured in this report — provides the lowest level of Medicaid support in the nation for its elderly citizens needing skilled nursing care.  “Five South Dakota nursing homes have shut down in the past three years, and dozens more are losing money because the majority of their residents rely on Medicaid,” according to author Jack Healy.

Costs vary from state to state but $6,000 to $8,000 per month is probably a conservative cost range for a nursing home patient.  How many higher level middleclass families can afford that type of financial burden if a parent can’t?  And Alzheimer’s patients can need this type of care for many years.

There were over 1.3 million patients in nursing homes in 2016, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.   Almost half a million were in the 20 states seeking to invalidate Obamacare.  Six of these states are in the top 10 that are most dependent on Medicaid and other federal funding, according to the personal finance website WalletHub and half are in the top 20 most dependent.

Congressional Republicans who are up for reelection in 2020 are no doubt praying Obamacare survives this constitutional challenge by their state colleagues.  For if it’s struck down, they will finally be forced to defend what they have been trying to achieve for almost a decade — and they will be crushed at the polls.